Today Jesse Jackson Weeps
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
How do you get these people "out of the rut" without causing them hurt or harm ?
By not restricting them from the opportunity we all have. It's up to them whether or not they decide to get "out of the rut".
-
Well, not moral in a truly religious sense. More like non-aggression in the sense that some state doesn't oppress or aggress towards you through something like taxation or expropriation of property.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Well, not moral in a truly religious sense. More like non-aggression in the sense that some state doesn't oppress or aggress towards you through something like taxation or expropriation of property.
That's the principle America was founded on...And look what happened!
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Matthew Faithfull wrote: The world is a closed system. No it isn't.
:laugh::((:laugh::((?
Red Stateler wrote:
Matthew Faithfull wrote: is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it. No. It isn't because it's wrong.
For why this attitude is wrong, has been proved to be a bigger problem than what you're talking about and will trip you up at every turn see the history of racism, colourism, exclusive nationalism, sectarianism or any other form of artificial and morally unsustainable discrimination. Wealthism is no different. Sorry, usually you have a point but on this one you're just plain wrong.
Red Stateler wrote:
That humanity's character is raped away by a capitalist system
No it is rotten right through before any of that kicks in. Remember it's not Capitalism that is sinful it's Capitalists (and non Capitalists);)
Red Stateler wrote:
access to wealth is universal.
Tell that to the people of Darfur, or Manilla, or the favellas of Rio but with all due respect please don't expect me to accept such nonesense.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Wealthism (new term...whatever it's supposed to mean) is not a class-driven society. Rather, it's an open society that allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth. You have it backwards. Wealth does not determine character like you insist. Character determines are ability to access wealth (among other things).
-
Wealthism (new term...whatever it's supposed to mean) is not a class-driven society. Rather, it's an open society that allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth. You have it backwards. Wealth does not determine character like you insist. Character determines are ability to access wealth (among other things).
Red Stateler wrote:
allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth
And those that don't have the means through no exceptional fault of their own? No system is perfect but that's because people are not perfect.
Red Stateler wrote:
Wealth does not determine character
I'm glad we agree on that.:-D Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Wealthism (new term...whatever it's supposed to mean) is not a class-driven society. Rather, it's an open society that allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth. You have it backwards. Wealth does not determine character like you insist. Character determines are ability to access wealth (among other things).
-
Red Stateler wrote:
allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth
And those that don't have the means through no exceptional fault of their own? No system is perfect but that's because people are not perfect.
Red Stateler wrote:
Wealth does not determine character
I'm glad we agree on that.:-D Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
I didn't say it "determines wealth". I said it determines your accessibility to it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Wealth does not determine character
Would Paris Hilton or Matthew Mellion agree with your observation? They are both wealthy heirs to a fortune but neither have too many brain cells between them!
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Would Paris Hilton or Matthew Mellion agree with your observation?
I concede that there are those who are wealth and lack character. Of course, Paris inherited her money. She didn't earn it.
-
Eliminate Welfare, while providing them with an oppurtunity to work for a living. Someone who works for what they have typically values it more than someone who is given everything.
Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
I didn't say it "determines wealth". I said it determines your accessibility to it.
Red Stateler wrote:
I didn't say it "determines wealth". I said it determines your accessibility to it.
In an idealised American dream maybe but Mother Theresea would not have supported your point of view, nor Brother Yun [^] who's character I admire very much. Perhaps where character does determine accessibility to wealth it is not always good character that increases that access and bad character that decreases it. Who after all are the ones who escape the ghetto fastest, not always the hard working people of good character but often the con men and those who are prepared to exploit others. There is in the end no correlation between good character and wealth and this foolish notion is very dangerous because it blinds people to the evil deeds of the rich and powerful. When a poor ghetto dwelling bum says "It wasn't me, I was framed" we laugh but when a man in a smart suit with a microphone and standing next to some well known celebrity says it we are minded to give him a hearing.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
I didn't say it "determines wealth". I said it determines your accessibility to it.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Perhaps where character does determine accessibility to wealth it is not always good character that increases that access and bad character that decreases it. Who after all are the ones who escape the ghetto fastest, not always the hard working people of good character but often the con men and those who are prepared to exploit others.
And you base this oonnnnnn....?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There is in the end no correlation between good character and wealth and this foolish notion is very dangerous because it blinds people to the evil deeds of the rich and powerful. When a poor ghetto dwelling bum says "It wasn't me, I was framed" we laugh but when a man in a smart suit with a microphone and standing next to some well known celebrity says it we are minded to give him a hearing.
There are certainly immoral rich people. I'm not arguing against that. But the aquisition of wealth requires industry, not sloth. If you contribute positively towards the material progress of mankind, you are rewarded for it. If you don't, then you are not (unless you win the lottery). It's that simple.